Mod QSP Jack-o-Nine-Tails Developer Versions and Mods

[qwertyu12359]

It isn't the same, currently. Neither mechanically nor conceptually.

I don't see much of a conceptual difference that would explain why one reduces spoil instantly and the other doesn't.

"Put in place" doesn't do anything to guilt currently, if it's there it stays, if it's not there it doesn't matter.

I meant it does something to spoil.

Freudian slip. Edited the message.

You'd lose the ability to threaten her and reduce her spoil level without increasing angst when she's not guilty, for one.

There's already a "threaten" option and it's not "put in place".

"Put in place" seems to me as a magical "reduce spoil" button. And do we want one? Maybe, but do we want it to be as effective if not more effective than other options like extreme punishments? I don't think so. Making it a "soft way" of reducing spoil, why not; but having it be the ONLY way to reduce spoil instantly, no.

For conceptual consistency, it should be: either other options reduce spoil instantly (with adapted tradeoff), or none of them do.

It's there and it works

Precisely, it doesn't. As per Pianocat's intuition. And I tend to agree with what what he raised as being a problem.

vs. some as yet to be defined new system. I'm certainly not opposed to some rethinking here, but I see value in drawing a distinction between punishing reactively and threatening/influencing proactively.

I still don't see the conceptual difference between a verbal punishment that comes without guilt and the "put in place" button. Nor do I see why what you say in "put in place" is effectively more useful at lowering spoil than other more extreme things in the same vein.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

I don't see much of a conceptual difference that would explain why one reduces spoil instantly and the other doesn't.

There's already a "threaten" option and it's not "put in place".

One is specifically aimed at reducing spoil and the other is not. All of the verbal punishments are threats, based on the texts.

I see a distinction between threats in the context of "you already did something wrong and I'm punishing you for it by verbally abusing you rather than a variety of other punishments I could have chosen instead" and threats in the context of "I think you might do something wrong in the future, and I'm warning you ahead of time to think twice about defying me" ... one is looking correcting a specific instance of misbehavior that already occurred, the other is anticipating the possibility of future misbehavior and attempting to pre-empt it.

"Put in place" seems to me as a magical "reduce spoil" button. And do we want one? Maybe, but do we want it to be as effective if not more effective than other options like extreme punishments? I don't think so. Making it a "soft way" of reducing spoil, why not; but having it be the ONLY way to reduce spoil instantly, no.

It a) reduces spoil (not necessarily to the extent of dropping it by a level, though); b) doesn't affect guilt; c) doesn't cause angst; d) doesn't increase fear. The only slave stat it modifies is spoil.

For conceptual consistency, it should be: either other options reduce spoil instantly (with adapted tradeoff), or none of them do.

What if we modify "put in place" to never instantly drop the level of spoil? Instead, at maximal effectiveness it would set the spoil rate to 1 point away from dropping to the next level down. This would mean that the slave's spoil level would drop overnight unless the slave gained more spoil in the interim.

 

[qwertyu12359]

It a) reduces spoil (not necessarily to the extent of dropping it by a level, though); b) doesn't affect guilt; c) doesn't cause angst; d) doesn't increase fear. The only slave stat it modifies is spoil.

That's exactly what I said, it's literally a "reduce spoil" button.

Mechanically: does it make sense to be able to reduce spoil effectively and instantly, without any tradeoff?

Conceptually: Does it make sens that the specific sentences said by the "put in place" are faster at reducing spoil than any other possible action in the game?

What if we modify "put in place" to never instantly drop the level of spoil? Instead, at maximal effectiveness it would set the spoil rate to 1 point away from dropping to the next level down. This would mean that the slave's spoil level would drop overnight unless the slave gained more spoil in the interim.

That would be a beginning.

But we'd abandon the instantaneous possibility. And Pianocat's point was exactly the opposite: a severe punishment really intuitively makes you think that she should stop giving you crap at once. And we can mitigate that with temperament or pride or nature or intellect, whatever... still we should think of it as being stronger than putting in place ("putting in place" would be the safe option, some punishments if effective would be the unsafe option).

Your proposition to make fear work overnight is also a beginning, still we'd abandon the instantaneous aspect of it.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

Instantaneous is currently reserved for late-game, with "put in place" effectiveness depending on master stats. Instantaneous weakens the deterrence value of spoil, so we should be very cautious about making instantaneous more accessible. My limited proposal to weaken "put in place" maintains or strengthens the deterrence value of spoil.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

To be clear, fear already works to lower spoil overnight. I was suggesting that we could increase the weight of fear in the overnight spoil reduction formula. But, that also reduces the deterrence value of spoil. So I'm hesitant about it, too.

 

[qwertyu12359]

Instantaneous is currently reserved for late-game, with "put in place" effectiveness depending on master stats.

Then is there any reason not to make it the same for late-game whipping and rope-biding if you are A+ or S+ in those stats?

My limited proposal to weaken "put in place" maintains or strengthens the deterrence value of spoil.

But your proposition isn't "complete". It doesn't address our concerns at all.

Remember, the concern is about cohesiveness. And it isn't cohesive that talking "put in place" works better and faster than (at least some) punishments.

To be clear, fear already works to lower spoil overnight. I was suggesting that we could increase the weight of fear in the overnight spoil reduction formula. But, that also reduces the deterrence value of spoil. So I'm hesitant about it, too.

The only thing I want is for the game to consider punishments to be as effective or more effective than put in place.

If for that, you have to: 1) Make fear more OP
2) Make "put in place" less OP
3) End up removing instantaneous altogether

I can still get on board with it.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

Then is there any reason not to make it the same for late-game whipping and rope-biding if you are A+ or S+ in those stats?

I don't follow?

But your proposition isn't "complete". It doesn't address our concerns at all.

Remember, the concern is about cohesiveness. And it isn't cohesive that talking "put in place" works better and faster than (at least some) punishments.

The only thing I want is for the game to consider punishments to be as effective or more effective than put in place.

If for that, you have to: 1) Make fear more OP
2) Make "put in place" less OP
3) End up removing instantaneous altogether

I can still get on board with it.

"Put in place" deliberately undermines spoil as a penalty stat, currently, as a late-game reward. It gives more forgiveness for late-game players to "bend" the rules of "correct" gameplay. It's a perk.

If we make punishments as effective in lowering spoil as "put in place" is, we are effectively lowering difficulty in the early game by providing access to what is currently a late-game perk in the early game. If we weaken "put in place" we are nerfing the perk and giving late-game players less forgiveness to "bend" the rules.

Punishments already indirectly lower spoil by raising fear, which acts overnight and is not instantaneous. Per 3) you are okay with removing instantaneous altogether ... so if we didn't have "put in place", the current system would be acceptable to you?

Making punishments directly lower spoil opens the door to same-day spoil level reduction with multiple punishments. Same-day spoil reduction significantly undermines spoil as a penalty stat. Because if you can drop the level of spoil during the day, no amount of spoil that is gained overnight will raise it again by more than one level (because overflow points are reset when level changes). "Put in place" includes in its formula a lifetime diminishing return that makes it less effective each time you use it, so it can't be abused in that way indefinitely.

 

[Celerarity]

Hey guys, I haven't read the whole convo on "put in your place" affecting spoil, but have you considered allowing it to work easily but only as a one-time-ever thing?

So like, if a slave starts to drift into being spoiled and you catch it early, you could sit down and give her 'the talk' you never did, and instantly and cheaply take care of that little bit of spoil she was working towards... but if you habitually train her to be spoiled, that talk would only make a chip in the issue, and the rest would have to be done with the more difficult punishments. Instead of trying to balance its ease with other spoil reduction methods, you can allow it to be a little powerful because it's so limited, and if you really want to crank it up, have slaves that are just too spoiled simply not believe the talk and gain no benefit from it.

 

[qwertyu12359]

Per 3) you are okay with removing instantaneous altogether ... so if we didn't have "put in place", the current system would be acceptable to you?

Yes.

"Put in place" includes in its formula a lifetime diminishing return that makes it less effective each time you use it, so it can't be abused in that way indefinitely.

So basically, this:

Have you considered allowing it to work easily but only as a one-time-ever thing?

So like, if a slave starts to drift into being spoiled and you catch it early, you could sit down and give her 'the talk' you never did, and instantly and cheaply take care of that little bit of spoil she was working towards... but if you habitually train her to be spoiled, that talk would only make a chip in the issue, and the rest would have to be done with the more difficult punishments. Instead of trying to balance its ease with other spoil reduction methods, you can allow it to be a little powerful because it's so limited, and if you really want to crank it up, have slaves that are just too spoiled simply not believe the talk and gain no benefit from it.

is already how it works?

Because I'd be fine with it.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

"Put in place" currently is not one-time-only, but it does include a diminishing return and it's of limited efficacy even at "full" power ... factoring in the master's stats for increasing effect, and the slave's in opposition. So in practice, it does work much like Celerarity suggested. If you use it a few times, it can help, but if you overuse it, it becomes useless.

 

[qwertyu12359]

"Put in place" currently is not one-time-only, but it does include a diminishing return and it's of limited efficacy even at "full" power ... factoring in the master's stats for increasing effect, and the slave's in opposition. So in practice, it does work much like Celerarity suggested. If you use it a few times, it can help, but if you overuse it, it becomes useless.

So exactly like "threaten" and "encourage".

That makes sense within the "ask and influence" system. As for if it works overhaul... I feel that it doesn't.

But if I haven't been able to convince you despite all these messages, I'll get on the conservative side, at least until I can formulate arguments that would be enough to convince myself if I didn't have my current intuition that it's all incohesive.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

By all means let's continue to think about it... meaningful consequences are good, late-game perks are good ... cohesiveness is subjective and needs to be weighed against those things. Without meaningful consequences, there's no challenge. Without late-game perks, there's less reward for long-term play. If we can increase cohesiveness while keeping meaningful consequences and late-game perks, great. If we have to sacrifice either to gain cohesiveness, we should be careful.

 

[qwertyu12359]

I don't follow?

I want punishments to be as effective (if not more) in reducing spoil than "put in place".

To that you say: "no", because "put in place" is a neat end-game reward.

I reply that we can keep the "reduce guilt instant effect" for late-game and still make them work for punishments.

Exemples:
--------> if you beat a slave brutally and you are not really strong, then the spoil would remain as much as if you put her in place and you were just beginning the game.

---------> if you do this kind of punishment, you'd have to be good or excellent or astonishing at whipping.

------> for this, you have to develop the rope skill.



Finally, for these:
---------> the spoil reducing would be soft-lock behind buying the dungeon extension or living in a nice area such as the Bull, Necropolis, or White Town.

 

[Celerarity]

if it helps qwerty...

Conceptually: Does it make sens that the specific sentences said by the "put in place" are faster at reducing spoil than any other possible action in the game?

This is all an abstraction anyway, but unlike the other spoil reduction methods (fair punishment driving fear and lowering the self-assured image that drives spoiling), this one involves sitting down and addressing the issue directly with your slave.

Basically, if you successfully reduce spoiling with the option, you've gotten your slave to understand why being spoiled is bad and gotten her to want to work on it, so the reason it works immediately could be because your slave makes a conscious effort to start acting less spoiled.

Like, if your boss yells at you for being lazy, and you're just doing your job... you just wait until they finish and move on. But if they make you want to actually change, because they have some good points you hadn't really understood, the first thing you'd do is try to go out and give that change a chance right, to show yourself and them you can do better?

In that sense, the power of "put in place" isn't specific words you say to the slave... it's that somehow by finding the right time and atmosphere, you can get the slave to actually buy into your argument and want to change themselves. The arguments aren't that hard to imagine... people don't want to buy spoiled slaves, and if nobody wants you, we know what your career prospects are...

So mechanically, "put in place" can be a little easy and fast because it is limited, and it can't fix a badly spoiled slave like serious torture can. if necessary, further limits could even be placed on it, like becoming less effective with time owned. Conceptually, "put in place" can make sense as using mental manipulation to make your slave want to fix themselves for you, a strong trick the first time but of less use on the jaded or close-minded. If you really want to crank the thematicness of it, making dumber slaves either more susceptible (because they're easy to manipulate) or too thick to get the arguments (and so not well moved by it) might be a further source of flavor.

 

[qwertyu12359]

Like, if your boss yells at you for being lazy, and you're just doing your job... you just wait until they finish and move on. But if they make you want to actually change, because they have some good points you hadn't really understood, the first thing you'd do is try to go out and give that change a chance right, to show yourself and them you can do better?

In that sense, the power of "put in place" isn't specific words you say to the slave... it's that somehow by finding the right time and atmosphere, you can get the slave to actually buy into your argument and want to change themselves. The arguments aren't that hard to imagine... people don't want to buy spoiled slaves, and if nobody wants you, we know what your career prospects are...

I can hear that. Maybe the sentences said in that moment can be made a little different (because currently it's more in the line of yelling: "I won't take any more of your shit", just like a screaming boss).

Anyway, I'm a bit too tired to think about all of this right now. I'll let Pianocat tell us if he is convinced by your argument.

 

[Aklackadaka]

So you mean, on the auction?

I see that on my version too. I think it's because the auction rank is supposed to be about the girl's potential, and since the uniformization cleanup of the code, the auction rank is now the actual rank of the slave as if you were training her.

Your instinct that they are all "actually feeble"... does it get verified by the fact that the slave has almost 0 energy every day? If not, it means that my explanation is probably the correct one.

Which means that the glitch you're encountering is mostly a visual annoyance and that it shouldn't get in the way of your gameplay. Anyway, we'll fix it this evening Thanks a lot for the report!

It seems like the issue had actually changed between versions. When I played the version from a few weeks ago (the one with the black lines and the werewolf dude being rated as maximum difficulty), it was impossible to sell any slave. They would all be rejected with that "She looks ready to fall over!" line that denotes a feeble slave. This would happen regardless of the actual endurance stat. Their energy levels were unaffected, though. Also Isabella would have the option to train their endurance even if it was at maximum. So that's why I thought that the game was treating them as feeble.

When I played the version from just before your hotfix, I saw that all the slaves were rated at F- and so I assumed that it was the same problem. But on that version you're actually able to sell your slaves properly.

 

[Aklackadaka]

Now on the most recent loli version I'm not seeing any slave ratings at all in the auction.

 

[qwertyu12359]

Now on the most recent loli version I'm not seeing any slave ratings at all in the auction.

Yes!

We discussed it with Imp_A, and he had made the auction rating match the "real rating" on purpose. I asked him about his train of thought because, indeed, in 2.1 and all other previous version, there was a different rating for each slave of the auction.

In 2.1, it looked at their attributes and beauty/fame to assign them ratings at auction, without considering skills or obedience.
---------------------
It seems inconsistent to rank the slaves differently at auction than when you own them.

I heard that. Indeed, the beauty/fame is not equal to the slave's potential (every slave can reach S+).

Then I decided that an indicator that doesn't change is a useless indicator. So we removed it.

 

[Aklackadaka]

Yes!

We discussed it with Imp_A, and he had made the auction rating match the "real rating" on purpose. I asked him about his train of thought because, indeed, in 2.1 and all other previous version, there was a different rating for each slave of the auction.



I heard that. Indeed, the beauty/fame is not equal to the slave's potential (every slave can reach S+).

Then I decided that an indicator that doesn't change is a useless indicator. So we removed it.

I don't get that at all. Skills and obedience are both really easy to raise. The slaves' attributes are way harder to change. That's why it shows a rating based on everything but skills/obedience. It's showing you the best rank that the slave can reach naturally. Obviously a newly purchased slave will have no obedience and barely any skills.

And why are you saying "every slave can reach S+"? Maybe with an extreme investment in time and money so that you can use neoplasties, specialized gear, and particular treatment, but that's a process that will raise the total training time exponentially. If a slave's basic attributes aren't good enough to reach the desired rank, you'd be much better off just selling it and getting a new one.

 

[qwertyu12359]

I don't get that at all. Skills and obedience are both really easy to raise. The slaves' attributes are way harder to change. That's why it shows a rating based on everything but skills/obedience. It's showing you the best rank that the slave can reach naturally.

That's what I thought too, but no. It apparently wasn't thought out as the "immediate potential" or the "difficulty to train" or even how wishable are the arithmetic average of the attributes. It was just beauty and fame.

Or so I thought before re-reading: "In 2.1, it looked at their attributes and beauty/fame".

So yes, of course you are right! We'll go back to 2.1 system of auction ranking.
---------------
Edit: Ah no I had another argument in mind. We don't need rank, we only need the prize at which she is sold, to have a glimpse at the overhaul value/simplicity/potential of a slave.

That, and the fact that a lot of attributes are neither good nor bad in themselves for the overhaul ranking outside of the auction.